Intel Core i5-1130G7 vs Intel Core i5-8400H Comparison

The Intel Core i5-1130G7 and Intel Core i5-8400H are both 4-core, 8-thread mobile processors, but the recorded benchmark data leaves no doubt about which one is faster. In every Cinebench test available, the 1130G7 beats the 8400H by a margin of roughly 9.6% to 10%. This is especially notable because the 1130G7 carries a 15 W TDP compared to the 8400H's 45 W, and it uses a newer 10 nm process. The following sections break down the head-to-head results, specification differences, and architectural choices that explain this outcome.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head dataset covers six Cinebench workloads, and the 1130G7 wins all of them. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 1130G7 scores 706 against 644 for the 8400H, a 9.6% advantage. The single-core test shows 99 versus 90, a 10% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core result is 2942 versus 2684, again a 9.6% delta, and single-core is 415 versus 378, a 9.8% gap. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score is 7006 versus 6392, a 9.6% difference, and single-core is 989 versus 902, also 9.6%.

The consistency of these deltas is striking. The 1130G7 does not just win by a fluke in one test; it maintains a nearly uniform performance advantage across all six workloads. The single-core lead is slightly larger in R15 and R20, but the multi-core margins are all exactly 9.6%. This suggests that the architectural improvements in the 1130G7 deliver a broad uplift rather than a workload-specific boost.

It is also notably the 8400H has Geekbench scores in the database (3656 multi-core, 1281 single-core), but the 1130G7 does not have corresponding Geekbench entries. Therefore, no direct Geekbench comparison is possible from the recorded data. The head-to-head analysis must rely solely on the Cinebench results, which are comprehensive enough to establish a clear winner.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in single-core performance?

A: The 1130G7 wins every single-core Cinebench test. In R23, it scores 989 versus 902, a 9.6% lead. In R20, it scores 415 versus 378 (9.8%), and in R15, 99 versus 90 (10%).

Q: How do they compare in multi-core workloads?

A: The 1130G7 also leads in all multi-core tests. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 7006 versus 6392, a 9.6% advantage. The R20 and R15 multi-core deltas are also 9.6%.

Q: What are the thermal design power differences?

A: The 1130G7 has a TDP of 15 W, while the 8400H has a TDP of 45 W. This means the 1130G7 is designed for a much lower power envelope, which is typical for ultraportable systems.

Q: Which processor is newer?

A: The 1130G7 was released in September 2020, while the 8400H came out in April 2018. The 1130G7 is still in active production, whereas the 8400H is end-of-life.

Q: Do they have the same cache configuration?

A: No. The 1130G7 has 96 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core, with 8 MB shared L3. The 8400H has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, with 12 MB shared L3. The 1130G7 has larger per-core caches, while the 8400H has more L3.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the 1130G7 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench benchmarks. Its average benchmark score is 2026, compared to 2003 for the 8400H, and both sit at the 45th percentile among all CPUs. The 1130G7 achieves this with a 15 W TDP, a 10 nm process, and a newer architecture. The 8400H, despite a higher boost clock (4.10 GHz versus 4.00 GHz) and more L3 cache (12 MB versus 8 MB), cannot match the 1130G7's performance. For any workload represented by Cinebench, the 1130G7 is the superior choice. The 8400H is also end-of-life, making the 1130G7 the more future-proof option.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The 1130G7 has a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, while the 8400H has a base clock of 2500 MHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. The TDP is 15 W for the 1130G7 and 45 W for the 8400H. The sockets are different: BGA 1598 for the 1130G7 and BGA 1440 for the 8400H. The process node is 10 nm for the 1130G7 and 14 nm for the 8400H. Cache sizes also differ: the 1130G7 has 96 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core, with 8 MB shared L3; the 8400H has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, with 12 MB shared L3. The 1130G7 has a memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s, while the 8400H has no memory bandwidth data recorded. The 1130G7 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while the 8400H has no PCIe information. Integrated graphics are Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EU on the 1130G7 versus UHD 630 on the 8400H. Production status is Active for the 1130G7 and End-of-life for the 8400H. Release dates are September 2020 and April 2018, respectively. The 8400H also has a recorded die size of 126 mm² and a part number SR3Z1, while the 1130G7 has neither.

Architecture Differences

The 1130G7 is based on Tiger Lake architecture, specifically the Willow Cove-U generation, while the 8400H uses Coffee Lake, specifically Coffee Lake-H. The process node is 10 nm for the 1130G7 and 14 nm for the 8400H. The 1130G7 has a larger L1 and L2 cache per core, but a smaller L3. The 1130G7 supports DDR4 memory with dual-channel configuration and a memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s; the 8400H also supports DDR4 but no memory bus details are recorded. The 1130G7 has PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while the 8400H has no PCIe information. The integrated graphics differ: Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EU on the 1130G7 versus UHD 630 on the 8400H. The 1130G7 is a newer design, released in 2020, and remains active, while the 8400H is from 2018 and end-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the 1130G7 wins in every category. There are no tests where the 8400H comes out ahead. The 1130G7's single-core and multi-core Cinebench scores are consistently higher. The 8400H does have a higher boost clock and more L3 cache, but these do not translate to benchmark wins. The 8400H also has Geekbench scores in the database, but since the 1130G7 lacks Geekbench entries, no comparison is possible. For users prioritizing Cinebench performance, the 1130G7 is the clear choice. The 8400H might be considered for legacy compatibility, but its end-of-life status and lower performance make it less attractive.